Nancy has been waiting because she wants more than just impeachment-JAIL!!

[LV426]

I have not been inconsistent. You are just a moron.

Yes you have.

You started out this thread denying Manafort shared anything with Kilimnik.

Then you denied Kilimnik had any ties to Russia.

Then you tried to say sharing polling data with Kilimnik was not illegal.

Then you tried to argue that Russian spies are not Russian spies when the FBI calls them that.

You've been all over the place here.

If this is a preview of Conservative defense of Trump, y'all are fucked.

 

[Southern Chicken]

Sure didn’t dumbshit. It merely prevented him from indicting.

SO you agree... no conclusion in the report. You know the reason Barr had to make a conclusion, correct?

 

[Micawber]

You don't want to admit you got conned because of what it means for your credibility and presence on these boards.

It's worse. They still believe. They are shameless and dumb. They have no idea their credibility is a fucking joke to everyone with IQ over 100
and that nobody so endowed has the slightest bit of respect for the intellect of the lot of them. Trump has done a miraculous job
of identifying the stupidest 30 percent or so of the US population. He's like bait that draws them out of their holes.

If only.... (complete my thought as you see fit)

 

[LV426]

Are you now saying Mueller broke the OLC opinion but put into his reported that he couldn't? You can do better!

Nope.

What I'm asking is why did Barr lie before the Senate on 4/20?

Was it because news of Mueller's two letters hadn't leaked yet, and Barr was trying to deceptively establish his conclusions as Mueller's?

Because the moment those letters became public, suddenly Barr started recalling conversations with Mueller...say, why is that?

 

[LV426]

I thought you said the OLC opinion didn't allow Mueller to have an opinion or conclusion.

1. Barr lied about Mueller's report.

2. Mueller sent him two letters accusing him of that, on March 24th and March 27th.

3. Barr denied receiving those letters when he testified before the Senate on April 20th.

4. On April 24th, news of Mueller's letters to Barr leaks ahead of Barr's House testimony.

5. On April 24th while testifying in the House after news of Mueller's letters breaks, Barr suddenly recalled talking with Mueller about his conclusions.

You must be pretty stupid to get fooled by Barr like that.

 

[Teflon Don]

1. Barr lied about Mueller's report.

2. Mueller sent him two letters accusing him of that.

3. Barr denied receiving those letters when he testified before the Senate on April 20th.

4. On April 24th, news of Mueller's letters to Barr leaks ahead of Barr's House testimony.

5. On April 24th while testifying in the House after news of Mueller's letters breaks, Barr suddenly recalled talking with Mueller about his conclusions.

You must be pretty stupid to get fooled by Barr like that.

Muller should testify under oath to that effect. Should be fun

Bring it on

Who are you trying to convince?

 

[LV426]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/mind-reading

How much do you charge and can I get a refund?

Stop lying to me and I won't keep calling you out for it.

 

[Superfreak]

NOPE.

So that doesn't mean "no evidence exists".

Evidence could exist; Mueller's team was limited in its ability to collect that evidence just like Mueller says in his report that you have yet to read.

So why do you continue only posting half truths here?

I didn't say no evidence 'exists'. I said there is no evidence. Meaning you don't have ANY evidence that has been presented... you DO have Mueller's report stating they have not found any evidence.

Saying something 'could exist' is a 'no shit' kind of comment.

It is not a half truth you fucking moron. Saying that Mueller found no evidence is factual. You quoted him saying just that. Yes, he doesn't have the power to investigate in other countries. That too is fact. But you continue pretending that it is factual that Manafort gave the info to 'Russians'. He did not. He gave it to his friend of 10+ years that is Ukrainian. Nothing presented shows what happened to the data from there. You just PRETEND it went to Russia.

 

[LV426]

SO you agree... no conclusion in the report. You know the reason Barr had to make a conclusion, correct?

That's not what Barr said, though...what Barr said was that there was "no collusion", despite there being tons of collusion.

Also, despite Mueller saying Barr misrepresented his report twice in letters that Barr lied about getting when asked by Van Hollen on 4/20.

This Conservative defense of Trump is going to end up killing the movement because at its core, it's hollow, empty, intellectually bankrupt sophistry.

 

[LV426]

It's worse. They still believe. They are shameless and dumb. They have no idea their credibility is a fucking joke to everyone with IQ over 100
and that nobody so endowed has the slightest bit of respect for the intellect of the lot of them. Trump has done a miraculous job
of identifying the stupidest 30 percent or so of the US population. He's like bait that draws them out of their holes.

If only.... (complete my thought as you see fit)

That's why I think everyone who voted for Trump should have a MAGA hat permanently attached to their heads; we need to know who these people are so we can act accordingly.

I'm a firm believer of Aldo-ism, which is the principle of not letting people skate away from their poor choices.

Aldo Raine carved swastikas in the heads of Nazis because they'd just take the uniform off and blend into society; carving a swastika in their heads (or attaching a red hat to their noggins permanently) doesn't let them scurry away. It is their choice following them for the rest of their life. It's accountability.

 

[LV426]

Muller should testify under oath to that effect. Should be fun
Bring it on
Who are you trying to convince?

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

I'm presenting facts and truth; you're the one who is resistant to that.

You've already burned your own lifeboat, so there's no need for me to.

 

[LV426]

I didn't say no evidence 'exists'.

That is what you literally said a few posts ago on this very thread.

This is what I mean when I say you're inconsistent.

You say something wrong, then you have to spend the next dozen posts explaining it away and correcting yourself.

You could just be correct the first time and save everyone the bandwidth.

 

[LV426]

I didn't say no evidence 'exists'. I said there is no evidence.

You literally said "No evidence exists".

You said that.

Literally.

So now, you are moving the goalposts.

Why did Manafort share polling data with Kilimnik in the first place?

What does polling data on PA have to do with a Ukraine/Russia peace plan?

You seem to be making the case Manafort colluded with Russia for me.

 

[LV426]

It is not a half truth you fucking moron

Yes it is, you loser.

You said "no evidence exists"...but you left out that gathering said evidence faced limitations and obstacles.

So that's a half-truth.

 

[LV426]

Saying that Mueller found no evidence is factual.

No, it's a half truth because you're leaving out why Mueller couldn't find evidence; he was limited in his ability to gather it.

So that completely changes the complexion of "no evidence".

It's a subtle attempt by you to frame Mueller's inability to gather evidence as proof of "no evidence".

You're a duplicitous, dishonest, bad faith piece of shit.

 

[LV426]

But you continue pretending that it is factual that Manafort gave the info to 'Russians'. He did not.

Yes he did!

Kilimnik is assessed by the FBI to have ties to Russian Intelligence, specifically the IRA which did all that troll work.

Why did Manafort share that polling data with him for months?

You haven't answered that question; you've said "because of a peace plan", but you have yet to connect the peace plan to polls from Michigan. What does the peace plan have to do with Wisconsin polls? Nothing.

 

[LV426]

He gave it to his friend of 10+ years that is Ukrainian

Why?

 

[domer76]

SO you agree... no conclusion in the report. You know the reason Barr had to make a conclusion, correct?

Nope, illiterate fuckwad.

10 conclusions.

FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION”


A. The Campaign's Response to Reports About Russian Support for Trump
B. The President's Conduct Concerning the Investigation of Michael Flynn
C. The President's Reaction to Public Confirmation of the FBl's Russia Investigation
D. Events Leading Up To and Surrounding the Termination of FBI Director Corney
E. The President's Efforts to Remove the Special Counsel
F. The President's Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation
H. The President's Further Efforts to Have the Attorney General Take Over the Investigation
I. The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel
J. The President's Conduct Towards Flynn, Manafort,
K. The President's Conduct Involving Michael Cohen

 

[Superfreak]

Established what to be true?

This is you sliding into the handicap of in-articulation because you can't make a coherent argument here in defense of Barr lying to the Senate.

Why did Barr tell Van Hollen he didn't know if Mueller agreed with his conclusions when Barr received two letters from Mueller that dispute Barr's conclusions of Mueller's report?




So far...

Also, Barr lied before the Senate, not the House.

LMAO... he did not dispute Barr's conclusions.

"Now, Mueller wrote his letter to object to Barr's handling of this. He reportedly thought that Barr's summary did not fully capture the context, the nature, the substance of the special counsel's work. He feared that it was basically contributing to public confusion about the investigation and its conclusions. Now, the Justice Department says that Barr called Mueller on the phone after he got Mueller's letter. The two discussed things. The Department says that Mueller emphasized that nothing in Barr's summary was inaccurate or misleading, but that Mueller was frustrated about the lack of context and that the media's coverage related to the analysis of obstruction of justice was a bit confusing. That's the Justice Department's take on this."

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/01/718927646/mueller-disputes-barrs-summary-in-letter

 

[LV426]

LMAO... he did not dispute Barr's conclusions.

This is what he literally said on March 27th: “The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. "

So the conclusions Barr made of Mueller's report were not fully capturing of the conclusions Mueller made in his report.